January 2012 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

Meeting Invitation / ISPCP Call / Monday 23 August at 1400 UTC
by Gisella Gruber-White Aug. 3, 2012

Aug. 3, 2012

Dear All, Please note that the next ISPCP call is scheduled for on Monday 23 August 2010 at 1400 UTC. Please find the dial-in details below. Thank you Kind regards Gisella ------------------------------------------------------------- Passcodes: Participant: 1385274 Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0489 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4854 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0956 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1956 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7725 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5235 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8211-1378 1-800-009-646 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-80-004 0800-677-079 BELGIUM 32-2-401-7012 0800-4-9773 BRAZIL 0800-7610709 CHILE 1230-020-2471 CHINA* 86-400-810-4743 10800-712-1185 10800-120-1185 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156479 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-06 800-700-159 DENMARK 45-7014-0229 8088-5346 ESTONIA 800-011-1092 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-156 0-800-1-12318 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-156 0-800-1-12318 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-67 080-563-9648 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-67 080-563-9648 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-25-91 080-563-9648 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20599 0800-101-2179 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0630 00800-12-5998 HONG KONG 852-2286-5624 800-968-767 HUNGARY 06-800-15230 INDIA 000-800-852-1209 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3492 IRELAND 353-1-431-9674 1800-992-641 ISRAEL 1-80-9214131 ITALY 39-02-3600-0507 800-985-846 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4755 00531-12-1423 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5146 00531-12-1423 LATVIA 8000-2933 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1305 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8114 MEXICO 001-866-761-6529 NETHERLANDS 31-20-713-3466 0800-020-3473 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4633 0800-445-270 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-05 800-11825 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072096 PERU 0800-53765 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3702 POLAND 00-800-1210066 PORTUGAL 8008-12795 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9763011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9189 800-120-4141 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-07 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93386 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1044 00798-14800-6315 SPAIN 34-91-414-08-12 800-099-807 SWEDEN 46-8-506-92-118 0200-897-066 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-4209 0800-000-663 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7338 00801-137-557 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65077 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9007 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3207 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2107 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7098-0710 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1407 0800-279-9198 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3427 USA 1-210-795-0464 866-617-1530 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3717 Certain dialing restrictions can apply from specific countries. To ensure that your participants have the correct dialing procedures, please include this link in your invitation: https://e-meetings.verizonbusiness.com/audioconferencing/global_access.php

6 30

RE: URGENT REMINDER Costa Rica Schedule
by tony holmes Jan. 27, 2012

Jan. 27, 2012

Thanks Wolf-Ulrich Helpful. Views from others welcome before I finalise please. Tony From: KnobenW(a)telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: 27 January 2012 10:39 To: tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com Cc: onovoa(a)Antel.com.uy Subject: AW: URGENT REMINDER Costa Rica Schedule Tony, from my point of view we should discuss the following topics at the constituency day: - WhoIs: RT report and recommendations; questions/survey of the WhoIs WG - SSR: findings of the Review Team - RAA: status of discussion and ISPCP positions - Budget - ISPCP organizational matters Maybe we should invite some of the members of the RTs /WGs Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

WHOIS presentation
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Jan. 27, 2012

Jan. 27, 2012

All, Following our call yesterday: here's the presentation Liz gave at the last council meeting about the WHOIS RT report and recommendations. <<GNSO - WHOIS RT v3.2.pptx>> Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

San José GNSO agenda
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Jan. 27, 2012

Jan. 27, 2012

FYI the draft GNSO agenda for Costa Rica - still flexible. Your comments at the call tomorrow are highly welcome. <<gnso-costarica-schedule-draft-10Jan12-en_v.6.xls>> Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Main points from ISPCP call 26 Jan
by tony holmes Jan. 26, 2012

Jan. 26, 2012

The following summarises the main points and actions from today's call. GNSO Issues Council met on 19th January. ISPCP were represented by Osvaldo Novoa and Wolf-Ulrich Knoben. 1 motion was passed relating to the IRTP and discussion took place relating to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group. Osvaldo Novoa attended that discussion group and will circulate to the ISPCP list 'Questions and Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at the top level'. ISPCP members are requested to provide feedback to Osvaldo and Wolf-Ulrich via the ISPCP list so that the views of the ISPCP Constituency can be represented. This issue will also be on the agenda when the GNSO meet with the GAC in Costa Rica. Discussions are on-going in council regarding the Registrar Accreditation Agreements, which were the cause of great concern for the GAC in Senegal. This issue will be given further consideration in Costa Rica. WHOIS Review Team The WHOIS review team have published their report and recommendations. The ISPCP need to provide feedback. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben will provide a link to the slides summarising the report on the ISPCP list. ISPCP members are requested to provide their views on the report and in particular the Recommendations made, via the ISPCP list. The WHOIS Review Team will meet with the GNSO council during the Costa Rica meeting. GNSO Meeting Costa Rica Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is working on the draft agenda for this meeting and will advise the Constituency once it's been agreed. Input from the Constituencies will be sought on specific question during the public GNSO meeting. The issues to be addressed have yet to be determined. ISPCP community request for FY13 The ISPCP have submitted four requests covering; - Secretariat services (including travel expenses) $15k - Officer travel $14k - Constituency outreach/ support for continued participation $14k - Sponsored attendance by ISPs from underserved regions $6k A separate submission will be made for toolkit items. Chairman to draft and submit after circulation. Travel to Costa Rica Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Tony Holmes will be funded by ICANN for the Costa Rica meeting. ISPCP meeting in Costa Rica ISPCP members are requested to provide draft items for the ISPCP agenda via the ISPCP list. Date of next ISPCP call Thursday 9th February at 14.00 UTC. Call details to be advised.

1 0

RV: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
by Novoa, Osvaldo Jan. 26, 2012

Jan. 26, 2012

All, This document reflects the discussion during the Drafting Group Meeting yesterday. As you can see the discussion is now centered at the top level, though it will discuss also second level. Personally I favor the following options: Q.1 Opt. 4b Q.2 Opt. 2 Q. 3 Opt. 3 Since I am quite new in the GNSO perhaps there are some subtleties I'm not seeing your opinion is very much welcome. Jeff Neuman is expecting our position regarding the questions by February 5th, the next meeting is going to be on February 8th. The drafting group hasn't yet meet with the GAC, Jeff expects to talk with them informally next week. Best regards, Osvaldo [cid:image001.jpg@01CCDC25.45C7BB80] Ing. Osvaldo Novoa Sub Gerente General R.I.I.C. ANTEL Tel: +598 2928 6444 E-mail: onovoa(a)antel.com.uy<mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> ________________________________ De: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Miércoles, 25 de Enero de 2012 11:48 p.m. Para: gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org Asunto: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level All, Thanks for the very productive session today during our call. Given the feedback on the call, we have revised the questions and options for protecting the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names at the top level. On the call, we discussed a fifth option for Question 1 which included the notion of a letter of non-objection from either the IOC/Red Cross or a relevant governmental entity (See options 5(a) and 5(b) below). It also occurred to me after the call that there is a sixth option, which enable an appeal process (like option 4) for entities that apply for strings that are found to have string similarity, but are unable to secure a letter of non-objection from the IOC/Red Cross or the relevant governmental authority, but still nonetheless have legitimate rights to the string. Options 6(a) and 6(b) may be overkill, but I wanted to make sure all the options are on the table. As requested during the call, these questions/options are being presented for your review and discussion within your respective groups. Please provide any comments and/or feedback you may have by Sunday, February 5th. This will enable us to assimilate the responses prior to our next call on February 8th. Thank you very much in advance for your consideration and time. Question 1. How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round GAC Proposal At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross terms like the words "test" and "example" in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 2.2.1.2), extending those terms to multiple languages and receiving consideration during the String Similarity review. Right now, these terms (in not every language) is in the section entitled "Strings Ineligible for Registration" and would not invoke String Similarity Review. * Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal. This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3: a) Are not considered "Reserved Names" b) Applied for strings are not reviewed for similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3. * Option 2: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as "reserved names" under Section 2.2.1.2. This means that: a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal. * Option 3: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "modified reserved names" meaning: a) The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable. b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal. * Option 4a - Same as Option 2, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD. * Option 4b - Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "modified reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD. * Option 5a: Same as Option 3 except that the "modified reserve names" are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities receiving a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable. * Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from a relevant government. * Option 6a: Same as Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "modified reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD. * Option 6b: Same as Option 5b, except there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "modified reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD. Question 2. Should the protections set forth in Question 1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3? If yes, which additional languages? a) Option 1: No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook b) Option 2: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in "multiple languages - all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet." c) Option 3: Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of languages. Question 3. Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds? a) Option 1: Yes, it should apply in all future rounds b) Option 2: No, it should only apply to this current round. c) Option 3: It should apply in this current round with no decision on subsequent rounds. We should evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent rounds based on the results of the evaluation. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

Cross Community Working Groups
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Jan. 12, 2012

Jan. 12, 2012

All, As promised at today's call I attach the Draft Principles for CCWGs which are for GNSO Council Review next week. Please let me know any questions/ideas about. BTW Tony (Holmes): as we fixed the next call for Jan 26, could you pls. Let Gisella know about in order to manage the adigo facilites? Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich <<Draft Principles for CWGs for GNSO Council Review 23 Dec 2011.pdf>>

2 1

beckstrom-to-strickling-11jan12-en.pdf
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Jan. 12, 2012

Jan. 12, 2012

FYI <<beckstrom-to-strickling-11jan12-en.pdf>> Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

WG: [council] New Years greetings from ICANN's chair
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Jan. 9, 2012

Jan. 9, 2012

Still Happy New Year to all of you - with the letter from Steve Crocker attached Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ ICANN Board, ICANN staff and chairs of the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, [SO and AC chairs, please feel free to pass this along to your members.] I write to bring you a brief greeting going into 2012. I won't attempt to cover the full set of accomplishments for the past year nor the full set of challenges and goals for this new year, but I do want to note just a few. In terms of immediacy, the opening of the window for applications for new gTLDs is January 12, ten days from now. This is occupying a large fraction of our attention and is also the source of much attention from our stakeholders and others watching us. An enormous amount of work has gone into the program and I, among many, many others, are eager to see what will happen. The opening of the window on January 12 will be a noteworthy day, but the closing date, three months later and the publication date for the names a bit later will also be quite noteworthy. I know there is a bit of controversy over some specific aspects of the program, but I am confident the program is well constructed and will run smoothly. I expect by the time we meet in Prague in June we'll have much to discuss along this line, and I look forward to hearing an initial assessment at that time. June will also mark the transition period for our CEO. Rod Beckstrom has brought enormous energy to the position and has greatly increased the visibility of ICANN around the world. The search process for the next CEO is now in full swing. Applications have started coming in and I believe there will be an announcement in the Economist shortly. George Sadowsky is leading the Board committee steering the process, and I know first hand how hard he and the whole committee are working. Another major event on the horizon is the determination of the next IANA contract. Our proposal was submitted to the U.S. Department of Commerce a few weeks ago, and I have every reason to believe it will be accepted. The IANA team, led by Elise Gerich, has done a first rate job providing the core service that was the raison d'être for the creation of ICANN. I expect the decision will be made sometime within the next two months, with perhaps a bit more time to iron out the details. These events -- gTLD launch, CEO transition, IANA contract -- will naturally attract a lot of attention both within our community and from the press and others, but they are obviously not the totality of our mission nor even the most important things for us to focus on. ICANN was created a little over thirteen years old. I believe we're well established and have demonstrated competence in our mission. However, like most teenagers, we still have some room to grow and become smoother. I'm sure each of you has his or her own list of improvements we should aim for. Here's my two in broad terms. Effectiveness. We often emphasize our commitment to a multi-stakeholder model. There's no question this is important. However, from my point of view, we are organized around broad participation from all parties because it's a system that has worked well in the Internet ecology. And "working well" means the job gets done. If we are not effective and reasonably efficient at doing the job we were created to do, the details of our processes will matter very little. We have many processes in place to measure ourselves in terms of transparency, accountability and other attributes of fairness. I applaud and support all of these, but I would like us all to keep in mind that in addition to these very important measures that we also focus on making sure that we deliver the service our community needs. Cooperation and Rapport. ICANN has some unique characteristics, but it is also just one among many organizations involved in supporting the development of the Internet and management of its critical resources. Despite the misconceptions sometimes appearing in the press, ICANN does not run the Internet, is not responsible for either the growth or the problems of the Internet, and has very little power over the very big challenges for the future. We have a vital and important role, but it's within a much larger ecology. I look forward to cementing and deepening the relations we have with the other organizations that created the Internet and hence created the environment that led to our creation, particularly the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Society (ISOC), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the TLD registries, the ISPs, the many and varied providers of content, and, perhaps the least easy to define, the innovators, researchers, and entrepreneurs who continuously mine the rich set of possibilities made possible by the openness of both the Internet architecture and the lightweight governance structures that evolved. And as important as all of these non-governmental organizations are, it is equally vital that we continue to cement and deepen our relations with governments around the world and provide them with confidence that the service we are providing to the entire community is balanced, predictable, effective and consistent with broadly shared values. I have had the good fortune to be involved in the network community for more than forty years, and it continues to be a privilege to be allowed to serve. I look forward to a vigorous and successful 2012, and I particularly look forward to the pleasure of working with all of you. My very best wishes to each of you both personally and professionally. Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors

1 0

Important - DOODLE / December call
by Gisella Gruber-White Jan. 4, 2012

Jan. 4, 2012

Dear All, Apologies for the delay! Please complete the attached Doodle poll to schedule a last call in December, if possible. http://www.doodle.com/nv9my98tgb9aghec Thank you! Kind regards, Gisella

1 2